Kolkata Court July 1898 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Basanta Kumar Boy Chowdhry Vs. Promotha Nath Bhuttacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal130
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether, having regard to the provisions of Sections 178 and 179 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, a contract by a tenant holding under a permanent mokarari lease to pay interest on the arrears of rent at a higher rate than 12 per cent per annum is enforceable in law.2. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 244 for arrears of rent and interest; the interest calculated being at the rate of one anna per rupee per month, according to the terms of a registered kabuliat executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. This document is printed at page 6 of the paper book. It purports to create a permanent mokarari lease, and was admittedly executed after the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The Munsif made a decree in favour of the plaintiff in terms of his prayer. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has varied the amount of interest awarded by the Munsif, and directed that the plaintiff s...
Basanta Kumar Ghattak Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal49
O'Kinealy and Henderson, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Sessions Judge of Jessore, who tried the case with the aid of a jury.2. It has been argued before us that there have been several misdirections in the charge. The only misdirection, however, that we can find in it is in regard to a petition of complaint, and an order on the back of it, which was put in evidence and is called Exhibit III. It was a complaint made in another proceeding altogether, and all the evidence given in regard to it is that the order on the back of it is in the handwriting of a certain Deputy Magistrate. There is no evidence to show that this complaint was ever put in by the present appellant, and that being so, we think that the evidence that the handwriting On the back of it is the handwriting of a Deputy Magistrate, is not sufficient. The Sessions Judge in charging the jury pointed out this as one of the material circumstances from which the intention of the appellant would be apparent, and ...
Nobo Kumar Bhuttacharjee and ors. Vs. Kumar Nath Bhuttacharjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal241
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs' father Upendra Nath Bhuttacharjee formed at one time with the defendants a joint Hindu family, but he appears to have separated from them in or about the year 1291, for we find that on the 31st of Assar of that year, corresponding with the 14th of July 1884, an ekrarnama was executed in his favour by some of the defendants, who were adults at the time, and by the guardian of the others who were minors, by which practically a partition was made of the joint estate and liabilities. It would appear from that document that, Whilst the family was joint, Upendra Nath had the management of the entire property. It also appears that he had borrowed upon a mortgage executed by him in his own name from one Srinath Roy a sum of over Rs. 11,000. After the division in 1884 Upendra died, leaving the plaintiffs as hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›